Some AI fake photos out there

[ZapBrannigan]

I'm a little frustrated. I posted a comment under a Star Trek related Youtube video and it got hidden from all eyes but mine. Shadow banned, and I'm not supposed to know. I'm just supposed to think nobody cares, so I should forget it. I only know I'm shadow banned because I opened the link from another browser, and my comment isn't there. But it shows up from my "logged into Youtube" POV.

The video is here...

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

...and this is what I wanted to say:
Hey man, a couple of your photos are AI slop. The false clapper board in "Who Mourns" (Dir. Joseph Pevney? No date, no episode number, wrong name "Jerry Finneral" -- that's all fake); the lieutenant stripes on Koenig and "close but not really" face on Doohan at the table reading; the ridiculous "shaving" picture of an AI slop Shatner impersonator... Why are you using AI fake photos that are riddled with errors you must have noticed? It creates what are essentially historical forgeries.

Maybe I was too harsh, but I doubt if anything I said about AI fakes would have been permitted. If he would even just put a caption on each fake saying "Photo illustration by [brand name of AI forgery bot]", I'd be okay with it.

And I would LOVE to know if the Michael-Forest-as-Apollo table reading picture is at least based on a real photo, or is it a total fabrication.

 

[Ragitsu]

This soft-becoming-hard censorship against those critical of "AI" is concerning, quite frankly.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

This soft-becoming-hard censorship against those critical of "AI" is concerning, quite frankly.

In this case, I think it's an individual thing. The guy is shielding his video from critical observations.

The clapperboard photo from Requiem for Methuselah could almost have been real, but along with the picture's improbable sharpness, the slate has some AI gibberish written in. The forgery bot creates false detail wherever it can't easily read the real thing.

 

[Tosk]

There's some awful ones in there. A clapper board for filming the Enterprise with STAR TREK (TOS) written on it. I think it might be a few decades early to call it TOS.


This kind of crap is on more and more videos every day. I actively avoid ("do not recommend channel") any videos that use it without disclosure, and even sometimes just for the thumbnail alone. This one is less egregious than some but it still tickles the annoyance centres of my brain.

 

[publiusr]

I found this amusing

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I actually like some of those depictions—inaccurate as they are

One of the things that scares me is this movement where deep fakes of famous scientists are telling us human Mars missions are impossible.

That is untrue. You can be critical of Elon without putting words in Feynman’s mouth that he never said. Even one or two at Hackaday got fooled a couple of months ago during Artemis II discussions.

 

[JamesRye]

Trouble is that making AI videos and images is getting easier and easier - it seems a lot of people are using them for thumb nails on YT videos. I like building star trek kits and love looking at behind the scenes photos. Fake AI images of people like Greg Jein building models has become prevalent, even on such nice Facebook pages.

There's a channel called 'Starfleet Dreams' - that is quite fun and inventive with its use of AI.

 

[F. King Daniel]

There are groups on Facebook posting endless AI Star Trek imagery, and more recently I've seen fake "Cage" era set construction pics and whatnot.

 

[Catboots]

Someone should make an addon for browsers that flags AI images as such on your screen. I mean there's software for detecting AI written works isn't there? Could there be a programme that can detect AI generated images?

 

[Forbin]

There's an AI pic out there of Kirstie Alley in a totally wrong TMP-ish uniform looking seductive, against a background set that we never saw anywhere, and I actually got cursed out for calling it AI. Like "Thanks for playing dumbass, but it's real!). Um. Nope.

And a LOT of the celebrity FB groups I belong to are posting more and more AI images of actresses that barely hold a vague resemblance to the real person. Why? WHY?!?!

 

[Ragitsu]

In this case, I think it's an individual thing. The guy is shielding his video from critical observations.

The clapperboard photo from Requiem for Methuselah could almost have been real, but along with the picture's improbable sharpness, the slate has some AI gibberish written in. The forgery bot creates false detail wherever it can't easily read the real thing.

I have seen a moderator (elsewhere, outside of these forums) go on a power trip, because he was upset folk were sharing stories of "AI" gone awry (as in, actually hurting people); in addition to his apparent stance on "AI", he even used a thin "This kind of talk could hurt others." excuse to semi-justify his jarring intervention.

There's some awful ones in there. A clapper board for filming the Enterprise with STAR TREK (TOS) written on it. I think it might be a few decades early to call it TOS.


This kind of crap is on more and more videos every day. I actively avoid ("do not recommend channel") any videos that use it without disclosure, and even sometimes just for the thumbnail alone. This one is less egregious than some but it still tickles the annoyance centres of my brain.

Let's call it what it is: pollution.

 

[Ssosmcin]

The video is here...

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Sweet Jesus how did you even sit through all of that? That was one of the most pretentious and annoying videos I've suffered through in a long assed time. The guy's voice alone makes me want to hit him.

And sorry if he's a member here, but holy crap.

 

[publiusr]

Trouble is that making AI videos and images is getting easier and easier - it seems a lot of people are using them for thumb nails on YT videos.

For the longest time, A.I. struggled depicting Star Trek ships. I'd love to see an article on why that was the case.

 

[Forbin]

I just like to use it for fun stuff.
These are definitely actual pictures of my wife and me on vacation.

 

[Forbin]

... and this is a positively not fake pic of our three dogs (who lived at different times) together, nor of 19-year-old me and 69-year-old me together.

 

[Tosk]

Bold movie to post Ai images in a thread where we're shitting all over people who use Ai.

 

[Ragitsu]

Ai is awesome (as is the other Ai); "AI", on the other hand...

 

[Tosk]

I tend to use Ai so that it looks less like the name Al, and because using lowercase for intelligence seems about right.

 

[BillJ]

I'm a little frustrated. I posted a comment under a Star Trek related Youtube video and it got hidden from all eyes but mine. Shadow banned, and I'm not supposed to know. I'm just supposed to think nobody cares, so I should forget it. I only know I'm shadow banned because I opened the link from another browser, and my comment isn't there. But it shows up from my "logged into Youtube" POV.

The video is here...

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

...and this is what I wanted to say:
Hey man, a couple of your photos are AI slop. The false clapper board in "Who Mourns" (Dir. Joseph Pevney? No date, no episode number, wrong name "Jerry Finneral" -- that's all fake); the lieutenant stripes on Koenig and "close but not really" face on Doohan at the table reading; the ridiculous "shaving" picture of an AI slop Shatner impersonator... Why are you using AI fake photos that are riddled with errors you must have noticed? It creates what are essentially historical forgeries.

Maybe I was too harsh, but I doubt if anything I said about AI fakes would have been permitted. If he would even just put a caption on each fake saying "Photo illustration by [brand name of AI forgery bot]", I'd be okay with it.

And I would LOVE to know if the Michael-Forest-as-Apollo table reading picture is at least based on a real photo, or is it a total fabrication.

Maybe not use “slop”? It comes across as combative.

 

[MurphyCooper]

I actively avoid channels that use AI instead of actual content. I prefer to discuss things with real people, watch real people, and see a real person's work. AI has its uses. For me? Media/Entertainment isn't one of them.

I use AI, I am guilty of it, but at the same time I am also highly critical of what it has done to media and entertainment.

 

[Ssosmcin]

Maybe not use “slop”? It comes across as combative.

Unfortunately, that's the word attached to it by critics of AI. I personally hate it. It became an immediate cliche and not a very imaginative one. I bristle at group think terms that people bandwagon on.